Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 1999 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1999 (4) TMI 491 - SUPREME COURTWhether there was no allotment of shares and it is not now open to the appellant to make such an allotment of shares and, therefore, it directed the repayment of the sum of ₹ 20 lakhs with interest? Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The Special Court is the only Court which can inquire into and deal with the matters of this nature where the transaction covered by section 9A or property standing attached under section 3(3) is involved and, therefore, the first contention urged on behalf of the appellant that the Special Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application of respondent No. 1 is plainly misconceived and stands rejected. Cloud of doubts was cast upon the entries in the register of members and the distinctive numbers of the shares and, therefore, the finding of fact recorded by the Special Court that there had been no allotment at all and it was sought to be made only after the second respondent was notified under the Act to avoid payment of money of a sum of ₹ 20 lakhs cannot be seriously disputed. Also no good reason to interfere with the said finding and the second contention urged also stands rejected. The Special Court was also justified in noticing that the transaction between the parties was really a financial arrangement with the "buy- back agreement" and even on that basis a sum of ₹ 20 lakhs with interest can be ordered to be paid to the Custodian.
|